Bus Transit Fare Collection Equipment Overview

Bus Transit Fare Collection U.S. Department of Transportation Equipment Overvievv Urban Mass Transportation Administration Office of Technical Assistance Prepared by : Office of Bus and Paratransit Systems Transportation Systems Center Washington DC 20590 Technology Sharing Office April 1982 RECEIVED 1 NOV 1 ( 1982 LIBRARY } HE 4341. +Ill ( A PROGRAM OF THE UNITED STATES TECHNOLOGY SHARING DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NOTICE This document disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the obJect of this report. Report No. DOT-TSC-UMTA-82-9 Bus Transit Fare Collection U.S. Department of Transportation Equipment Overvievv Urban Mass Transportation Administration Transportation Systems Center Technology Sharing Office Cambridge MA 02142 Office of Technical Assistance Office of Bus and Paratransit Systems Washington DC 20590 037', 3 HE 434:1. +B7 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1. INTRODUCTION ..••.•••..•••.••.••••.•••••• ••••••••...•. 1 2. AUTOMATIC FARE COLLECTION .•..•...•••.••.•.••..•.....• 3 2 • 1 Summary. 3 2.2 Automatic Fare Collection Equipment............. 4 2 . 2 • 1 Duncan Industries - Faretronic Mark IV ... 5 2. 2. 2 GFI* K-25 and K-50 Electrically Operated Registering Locked Fare Boxes and Automatic Revenue Retrieval System ..••... 6 2 • 2. 3 Vapor Almex Model E Transfer Issuing t1achine . ................................ 9 3. SELF-SERVICE FARE COLLECTION .....•.....••...•........ 13 3 . 1 Summary . 1 3 3.2 U.S. Demonstrations of SSFC .............•...•... 15 3.2.1 Kalamazoo, Michigan - Metro Transit Sys tern . •••....••.•.••.•.•••.••••.••..•.•• 15 3. 2 • 2 Portland, Oregon TRIMET ....•....•........ 19 3.2.3 San Diego, California, Metropolitan Transit Development Board .............••. 26 3.2.4 Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District, California .............................. 31 4. ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY ......•..••........... J•••·•••· 37 4.1 National Technical Information Service •...•..•.• 37 4.2 Automatic Fare Collection .....•..........•...•.. 37 4.3 Self-Service Fare Collection ..•........•.••.•.•• 41 5. EQUIPMENT SUPPLIERS .•......•................•......•. 45 5.1 U.S. Suppliers of Automatic and Self-Service Fare Collection Equipment for Buses .•.•.•...•... 45 5.2 European Suppliers of Self-Service Fare Collection Equipment ..•.•...••....•............. 43 * General Farebox Inc. (GFI), formerly Keene Corporation. iii 1. INTRODUCTION* Between June 1980 and June 1981, the adult cash fare on U.S. transit systems increased by an average of 17 percent. The U.S. Department of Transportation's decision to phase out federal transit operating subsidies ensures that fares will continue to increase at an even faster pace in years to come. The low fare philosophy of the 1970's is a thing of the past. Transit riders will be paying a higher share of their transporta tion cost in the future, and transit authorities will be handling much more money in both absolute and relative terms. For example, in August 1981, the Massachusetts Bay Transpor tation Authority (MBTA) inaugurated a large and very comprehensive fare increase. This increase caused many bus and light rail trips to be priced at or above $1.00. A huge influx of dollar bills resulted which the MBTA was unable to handle with their limited fare box capacity. Their immediate response to this situation was to inform passengers that dollar bills would no longer be accepted on buses or light rail vehicles. Obviously, this 1s a temporary policy and they are in need of changing their fare collection ~ystem to eliminate this restriction. As situations like this become more prevalent, revenue han dling and security at all levels will become a matter of greater concern to transit management. As fares increase and become more complex, some degree of automation may be desirable to assist with the collection, recording, and handling of fares on bus transit systems. This document 1s designed to give bus transit managers an up-to-date picture of fare collection equipment and systems which are designed with some degree of automation. It points out the problems and potentials of automating a bus transit fare collec tion system. * The information contained in this document was compiled during July and August, 1981. 1 2. AUTOMATIC FARE COLLECTION 2.1 SUMMARY Automatic Fare Collection is a very general term which will be used to describe any form of fare collection apparatus or sys tem which utilizes some form of automation in the fare collection, handling, and recording process. The highest form of automatic fare collection is employed on such properties as the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) in San Francisco, Port Authority Transit Corporation (PATCO) in Philadelphia, and the Washington Metropolitan Transportation Authority (WMATA) in Washington, D.C. These systems all utilize a magnetically coded card for ingress and egress. This card automatically computes and deducts the fare for each trip based on a zone or graduated fare structure. A lesser form of automatic fare collection is represented by coin- and token-operated gates which have been in use in such places as Boston, Chicago, and New York for over SO years. The economic viability of automatic fare collection on heavy rail rapid transit systems is well documented because of large numbers of people who enter the system through a limited number of stations. The economic viability of automatic fare collection on bus transit systems is much less clear, however, because of the need for special equipment on each bus which must be designed to with stand the rigors of on-board operation. Also, when such devices fail, the bus must be taken out of service along with the fare equipment. Since the beginning of urban bus transit, the bus operator has served very well as a fare collector and verifier. During the 1960's, most bus systems simplified the operator's role and improved security by adopting an exact fare policy. The 1970's saw the advent of vacuum collection systems and sealed vaults which provided further improvements in security. 3 Registering fare boxes were introduced in order to help the operator ensure that the proper amount of fare was being inserted by each customer. The registering fare box also gave the transit authorities a new capability for automatic data collection. Implicit in all of these developments was the understanding that increased mechanical and electrical complexity would result in added maintenance requirements and possibly lower system reli ability. It appears that improved productivity and security has more than offset reliability and maintainability problems, however. The trend today seems clearly toward more automation in bus fare collection and revenue handling. This trend will continue as fares are increased and fare structures become more complex. Some benefits of bus transit automatic fare collection are: • Increased overall security, • Opportunity for automatic data collection, • Reduction of manpower in the collection and counting function, and • Simplification of fare verification, resulting in increased operator productivity and safety, and a higher percentage of full fares paid. The principal problems with these new systems are: • High capital cost, • Increased mechanical and electrical complexity, and • Potential for reduced equipment reliability. 2.2 AUTOMATIC FARE COLLECTION EQUIPMENT For the purposes of this document, the definition of automa tic fare collection equipment is any component of the fare collec tion system which includes any degree of automation. Thus, infor mation has been included in this report on the following items. • Registering Fare Boxes • Transfer Issuing Machines 4 • Vacuum Collection Systems Since most transit authorities use bus fare collection equipment which is manufactured in the United States, the following listing has been restricted to U.S. manufacturers. 2.2.1 Duncan Industries - Faretronic Mark IV One of the most highly automated fare boxes on the market today is the Duncan Industries Faretronic Mark IV. This electronic fare box contains a microcomputer which records and stores revenue and passenger data and provides several features to help the bus driver ensure that he receives the correct fare from each passenger. These features include: 1. A coin-counting mechanism which accepts all U.S. coins and two types of tokens; 2. A paper currency mechanism which accepts and records one dollar bills and several sizes of tickets; 3. An audio transducer which signals the driver each time a "full fare" has been inserted in coins and/or dollar bills; 4. Two large display windows for visual inspection of coins and bills; 5. An LED display window which faces the driver and displays the fare as it is counted by the machine; 6. Six or twelve buttons which allow the driver to adjust the fare box for recording tokens, tickets, reduced fares, zone differentials, etc.; and 7. A locked container with separate compartments for bills. and coins. (The fare box cash container must be manually emptied into a master collection vault.) In addition to the standard features mentioned above, the Faretronic can also be equipped to read magnetically coded passes and tickets, as well as to record and store a wide range of ridership data. 5 Approximately 8500

Load more